MyE28.com

Lets try this again, try to stay on topic this time guys.

707.2 rwhp





Yes, its Ken Hawkins car. He has a 1988 M5 with the S38B34 engine. Care weighs 3360 lbs. Here is a quote - "The car is tractable enough when not in boost. Things begin to change character when I reach 3-4#. One is conscious of the fact that this is very much a race motor now and the whole package is highly intolerant of driver inattention or judgment shortcomings. Get above 3500rpm and 5# boost and You Just Got The Real Deal, Mister. Found a piece of straight open road w/ good visibility and laid into it @ 7.25 psi (low-range boost), holding shift points @ 5000. Ridiculous. It breaks traction all the way up to and including 5th gear.I am very glad I put in the Quaife differential. Given the sizing of the T66, one is real close to surge values when below 3500 and the wastegate is set to 15#. So going into full boost isn't done from standing starts. Pushing the "Loud" button is a religious experience. "


He has taken his FI engine build and system to a much higher level. I can not touch the amount of money and engineering he has in his car.

As far as why he left the board, I am not going to get into it or want too. He just felt like a lot of people were questioning his technical abilities and obviously he did not like that.

PS - I sent the full sized images to Jeremy to host. Once he posts them, you can then see all of the details on the graphs.

Okay... staying on topic.

Wow. Someone gave someone a lot of money to build a car that makes really big numbers. Wooooo!

Does anybody know who actually built this car?

I wonder if this car is running h20 injection, ported head? FMIC? Those are huge numbers for such low boost!! This is awesome. This car must fly like the m20 in that video from sweden! Hopefully we can see pics

That is great that someone can truly get all the potential out of that motor. Its great that the power levels are now raised. Its a labor of love it seems...it must be freakishly fast.


Good show

Umm,
I was one of the few that stay'd on topic, I think. Ill post it again since it is unclear to me if my post questioning the dyno #'s is off limits or not. I would hope not....Ill tone it down it dowm a "tad".

Im always curious when reading dyno charts. Especially with cars I have some knowledge of.

Upon further review of those dyno charts, I don't believe them.

While Im sure that Ken spent a whole lot o money, the hp numbers and boost levels don't add up, not even close at the "baseline of 7.5psi" levels for sure.

First, 7.5psi makes 565whp Hu, hows that. Are we runing full race cams(1500rpm idle) and 114 octane race fuel.
By pure math, (14.7+7.5)/14.7=1.51 pressure ratio.
So NA hp is 565/1.51 = 374whp.

Next, take that 374 # and apply some more common sense. We know that straight math doesn't work here, as heat and pumping losses take hp away. Lets be super conserative and say 10%. 10% is very conservative even with the best IC in the world, water or not.
374whp *1.10= 411whp.

Were still not home yet. That would pressume that the CR is still 10.5:1. But this engine is not, its 8.7:1. So thats another consertative 10% loss.
So 374*1.20= 448whp. Man, that is one stout S38, even in race build with 114octane.

Next, Duke mentioned a T66 turbo....Mmmmm


If he makes 707whp, that nearly 831hp crank. To make 831crank, the turbo needs to make at least another 8% more air to overcome pumping losses and heat,
831*1.08= 897hp.
Thats ~90lbs/min of air. That compressor map can no way support that much air. Its off scale. If the boost level was higher, again, I could believe it since that changes the operational area of the map. We know that with larger turbines that compressor map will build out to the right to cover higher air flows.

With my limited amount of info, it's not adding up. I may be wrong here. If he said he was runing 20+psi then I can believe it. Otherwise, I need more info.

Umm, as a data point, let us not forget "The Beast". This was Rob Levinsons E28 ///M5 that was purchased from a gent in Canada. This was a "no expense spared, open check" build also. $20k in parts(remember, this was 1990 dollars, inflation adjusted would be well more than $35k now) was spent on the engine alone using all BMW Motorsports parts. Extensive work everywhere. In its orginal form, the engine made between 550-600hp. That was with ~16psi. The turbo was sized down to limit the engine to 500hp to increase reliability. So your telling me Kens engine makes 231hp crank more with less boost then that one with mostly just different intake, turbo, ECU and some other bits?

If so, OK. Id really like to see some more data on the car.

If this post is out of line, PM me and Ill delete it, fall in line with everyone else as say "Great car", which it is.

RussC

russc wrote:If this post is out of line, PM me and Ill delete it, fall in line with everyone else as say "Great car", which it is.

RussC

IMO that is the only part of the post that's "out of line." No amount of money dumped into a motor buys you freedom from clear-headed skepticism and critique. Well done, Russ.

-tammer <--remembers the motor (beautiful) and the "scandal" (pitiful)

this issue of "how are these numbers possible" also occured on bimmerforums when my buddy ulysses reached 635 rwhp on a gt35r at 30 psi when the turbo is only rated for 27 psi. the other "anomaly" is that he was on 550cc injectors which everyone determined were way to small to support that much hp. the last matter was that this was all done on a bone stock internal motor, save for a low compression head gasket. we might want to look at the correction factor used in the dyno because at that elevation, they will generate much less hp due to thinner air and have adjusted the correction factor accordingly. also, this may sound like a highly uneducated comment but i think sometimes we read way to much into formulas and dont take the facts that are right infront of us to be true because a formula says they can not be.

p.s. i thought this car had a gt35r turbo originally?

gol10dr1 wrote: i think sometimes we read way to much into formulas and dont take the facts that are right infront of us to be true because a formula says they can not be.

Well, I think it's true you have to look at all the data, but basically in a given volume of fuel you have only so much chemical energy. Internal combustion engines are inherently inefficient; most of the chemical energy will be converted to heat and only some will yield productive motion. Now, with Ken's dual-injector bank, he's probably got the fuel to support the power he's making. The other side of it is, can his setup physically force enough air in to utilize the fuel properly? I suppose a 1/4-mile time would go a long way towards answering the question. Of course then you have the variable of not being able to put all the power down without melting tires. I want to see a video of this thing running.

-tammer <--doesn't really see the point of 800 hp besides the "gee, that's neat" factor ... wouldn't mind having about 360 in the iS though, 360 sounds like a nice round number, ya know, 2x stock ....

gol10dr1 wrote:this issue of "how are these numbers possible" also occured on bimmerforums when my buddy ulysses reached 635 rwhp on a gt35r at 30 psi when the turbo is only rated for 27 psi. the other "anomaly" is that he was on 550cc injectors which everyone determined were way to small to support that much hp. the last matter was that this was all done on a bone stock internal motor, save for a low compression head gasket. we might want to look at the correction factor used in the dyno because at that elevation, they will generate much less hp due to thinner air and have adjusted the correction factor accordingly. also, this may sound like a highly uneducated comment but i think sometimes we read way to much into formulas and dont take the facts that are right infront of us to be true because a formula says they can not be.

p.s. i thought this car had a gt35r turbo originally?

No,
Duke mentioned a T66 before deletion.

The inj hp is a very easy calculation.
Pic the AR, say 12:1. 55lb/hr inj., 1lb/min of air is ~10hp.
convert mins to hrs: multiply by 60.
So, at 12:1, you need 1 part fuel to 12 parts air.
55*12=660lb/hr of air.
convert to lbs/min, div by 60, so 660/60=11lb/min per inj.
6 injs 11*6=66lbs/min total or 660hp of air.

Thats right on the edge for 650whp. With higher fuel pressure you can make it with 100% duty cycle. 2nd and 3rd approximations usally dictate you need 30-50% more inj'r capacity than the first approximation above for obvious reasons, the first being running the inj at 80+% DC is not a very good idea.

In your case, at least hes running 30psi, that make sense for a 3.0+l ///M3 engine(I guess).

RussC

OK, here's the pics Duke sent me. Sorry it took me a bit, but I didn't realize he still wanted me to get them online. You can make out more details in these pictures. Clicking the picture will bring you to the full size version if you still can't make something out.






Now, about the motor. What's up with that viscious boost spike? 15psi at ~4720 rpm, then it falls 14psi by 5100, 13 at around 5800, near where the chart ends. That doesn't seem normal to me.

Also, the numbers could indeed be inflated by the dyno. The original turbo dyno day here in Ct had this issue. A few people threw down some huge numbers, then when they got home did the math and found out the numbers they got simply weren't possible given their injector size. As it turned out, the shop never had cars that powerful on its dyno and the dyno wasn't properly calibrated for it. Could be something similar here, but there's no way to know for sure.

Jeremy

russ, card counter has a 2.8l m52 motor, not a 3.0l m3 motor.

First off, I don't claim to be a turbo expert or even a turbo neophyte. But I have learned a lot by reading the various boards and talking to friends who are turbo experts. One of these friends as you all know full well is Zane Coker with the turbo E12. When posts like this come up, I usually forward it to the turbo guys I know and ask for their opinion. Zane and I have been trading emails, but I'll let him chime in if he wants to. I don't think he wants to get in a pissing match over the numbers so that's his perogative. I will just remind the readers that Zane's last dyno with his E12 was at 32psi and I *think* was on 110 octane fuel where he recorded a 723 rear-wheel-hp run. Obviously Zane's engine is a 2-valve head design so I know it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison with an S38. But Zane has some other secrets in his engine bay that not everyone knows about (not nitrous if that's what you're thinking).

But my other friend who is in the Chicago area is very well versed in the turbo scene, probably nearly the equal of Zane. Except this guy is in the Mustang SVO group (turbo 2.3 liter 4cylinders that were done in the Fox body stangs in the 1980's). Some guys on his list are generating huge numbers but of course with huge investments in engines to do that. I thought I would pass on what my friend said about this post.

The T66 turbo is not large enough to push that much HP, it is obvious with the map posted in the thread. I am still no expert on reading compressor maps, but I know enough to spot the airflow issues with that turbo on a [3.5L] engine (look at the CC's listed in the bottom dyno sheet!). The dyno graphs show the boost dropping off at high rpm, which even demonstrates the improper sized turbo. That thing didn't reach 10psi until just over 3600rpm, then ran out of breath at 4700rpm. If that isn't proof of a poorly chosen turbo, I don't know what is. Also look at the weird A/F curve on that thing, I have never seen that many peaks and valleys on a dyno run. Something isn't kosher, plain and simple.

Hey, AMS extracted 900+awhp out of a 2.3L using 44psi of boost and 8000+rpm, so just compare it to this guy's feat at less than 6000rpm and only 15psi of boost.

The turbo Buick guys with their 3.8L V6's generally stayed away from the T66 units because they are too small to support the engine's size and that is with a 2-valve engine!

The "AMS" he references is a shop here in Chicago doing some pretty insane build-ups on Mitsu Evos.

http://www.amsperformance.com/

I will say that both my friend here in Chicago quoted above and Zane commented on RussC's excellent commentary on this and that he had posted some fine criticism and detailed analysis of these dyno results. Good job Russ.

gol10dr1 wrote:russ, card counter has a 2.8l m52 motor, not a 3.0l m3 motor.

Umm, OK, 2.8l, close enough. I will make a more updated comment on the 55lb inj making 650whp, my calculation above was comparing to whp, not crank hp, thats a mistake. If you compare the 660hp to the crank hp that 650whp, it is higher, say like ~710crank hp. 55lb injs will not support that much power at 12:1 AFR w/o SIGNIFICANT fuel pressure rise. If you make the calculation at a higher AFR, then it gets closer, but never fully there.

Jeremy,
Thanks for the higher res pic. I was trying to look at the low res pic from Duke, but could not make out the boost curve. Now that I can see it, my point is even more valid. If the boost would have held properly through higher rpm range, the car should have made even more power. Like 740whp!!!! Even so, at peak hp, the the boost is ~13.2psi. Mmmm...

Without going through all the math here, I ran the #s on a 3.9l engine and calculated the air consumpltion of a perfect engine using the more accurate 1lb/min of air = 8.7hp. A perfect engine makes @ 13.2psi 1024hp(if you want me to post the math, I can). This car is making 710whp converted by say 15% to 835hp. Thats a 189hp difference from the physical maximum to the actual. That means his volumetric effeciency at 6010rpm is 81%. While that may sound plausable, that doesn't take into consideration heat, pumping losses, IC losses and other factors that can change the VE of the engine. And, the maximum VE is peak torque, not peak hp. So the VE will always be lower any other place in the rpm curve off peak torque.

As a sanity check, I entered some values into the Ray Hall turbocharger hp calculator. Used 100% VE, IC VE=75%, compressor effeiciency of 70%, rpm=6010, boost pressure=13.2psi and bore/stoke equal at 3.7in. Displacement came up as 238cu inches(3.9l). Calculated hp was 543hp. MMMmmmmm

RussC

When can we see some pics of this monster??

RussC's assessment of this engine.........................

Just to let you guys know. I sent Russ a detailed list of responses to his assessment of Ken's engine. Most of them directly contradict what Russ came up with the limited information he had on the engine. I will not post them due to Kens wishes.

This was over a week ago and Russ has yet to respond to them or update his posts on the subject. He was quick to be the nay-sayer, but not to correct himself.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Russ and his technical ability. But when you post wrong information or opinions that many board members are takeing as truth, you need to clarify when you get new information.

Duke M535ti wrote:RussC's assessment of this engine.........................

Just to let you guys know. I sent Russ a detailed list of responses to his assessment of Ken's engine. Most of them directly contradict what Russ came up with the limited information he had on the engine. I will not post them due to Kens wishes.

This was over a week ago and Russ has yet to respond to them or update his posts on the subject. He was quick to be the nay-sayer, but not to correct himself.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Russ and his technical ability. But when you post wrong information or opinions that many board members are takeing as truth, you need to clarify when you get new information.

Hey,
I sent you an email that I was still looking at this, but would respond in time. I haven't responded as like yourself, have been crushed by other more way more IMPORTANT things, like taxes, a complicated engine swap, work(gee, money is nice), a up comming vacation next week for 5 days and broken plumbing.

Ive taken the time to keep up with some posts and the engine swap stuff, but this will have to be in the back ground until at least May.

Also, if I can't use the data Ken has sent me, I can't make my analysis complete w/o referencing it here in this forum. At that point, whats the use anyway. I may just pop you an email that you can forwad to Ken in May. If Im allowed to post his data/comments then Ill be more proactive on this forum thread! W/O Kens feedback, this thread is dead......

RussC

I will not post them due to Kens wishes.

W/O Kens feedback, this thread is dead......

And so this thread once again curls back and eats itself...

If thin skin Ken is so angst stricken and ego challenged that he is still pouting about being called out on his bad joke, screw him and his million dollar baby. I'm not getting much out of a technical analysis of a car that might as well be imaginary. M ental M asterbation.

DMNaskale wrote:If thin skin Ken is so angst stricken and ego challenged that he is still pouting about being called out on his bad joke, screw him and his million dollar baby.

Nice........once again, lack of class rears its head here. You just don't get it do you?

I give up.............Looks like I will be the only one to benefit from Ken's extensive R&D on this project because some of you guys can't see past your stupid childish views and off topic opinions.

You'll see some of the benefits on my car at 5er Fest in the future.

russc wrote:W/O Kens feedback, this thread is dead......

RussC

Its dead then.

Nice........once again, lack of class rears its head here. You just don't get it do you? ...some of you guys can't see past your stupid childish views and off topic opinions.

No one is picking on you, yet you feel it necessary to make it personal. Thank you for that. Were you personally offended by my attempt to draw Ken out from his self imposed exile?

What is your big issue here Duke? You should check yourself unless you are Ken's nanny. You call out Russ, yet you can't provide any information. You are not doing anyone any favors, but you are wasting our time. Russ puts a lot into this forum and deserves more respect. You should appreciate this as a member who has presented a lot of beneficial information yourself over the years. I've never seen you run away when you didn't like the way a thread turned.

Ken is the one who created the problem, reacted oddly, and vanished from the forum. The thread strayed from the good stuff into the absurd due to Ken's actions. I don't recall a precedent for his actions on this forum. Until Ken steps up and represents himself, that will remain the sad reality of this topic. I have followed these threads every time they have popped up, and the car is interesting. I don't have the hard on for it that you do, it is a bit much for my taste and considering the budget it is not as impressive as some people find it. But maybe I am wrong, it is hard to be sure of any opinions when there is little solid information and plenty of hearsay to base my opinions on. If Ken wants to post here and discuss his car, deal with his detractors, and have the opportunity to prove them wrong, he would be welcome.

Duke M535ti wrote: I give up.............Looks like I will be the only one to benefit from Ken's extensive R&D on this project because some of you guys can't see past your stupid childish views and off topic opinions.

You'll see some of the benefits on my car at 5er Fest in the future.

Excuse me? "Childish views and off topic opinions." Ken is obviously READING this thread. If he has information to help us out with what we're seeing given the little dribbles and farts of information that's been posted so far, POST IT.

This thread is about Ken's car. In it people are asking questions about Ken's car. Ken is actively refusing to allow information about his car to be posted to clarify this, yet we're the ones accused of being childish?

Duke, you're doing the community no favors by taking this further. Either post the information you obviously have that will make things clear, or shut the hell up. Telling only half the story is often the same as telling a lie. Nobody can come to reliable conclusions when all we're given is faulty or incomplete data.

All I see is a motor that makes a lot of power but can't maintain boost to redline, which tells me something is wrong with the system.

Jeremy

This sounds like a schoolyard argument - Duke gives a few facts. Russ disputes claims based on those facts. Duke says "you're wrong but the reason is a secret"

Ipse Dixit just don't work without credibility - and Russ has a lot more of that than Ken.

I was thinking of turbocharging my M5 since the motor needs to be rebuilt sooner or later. Guess I made the mistake of not printing out the website that was hosted with the details... not being on a super duper budget, seeing what some one else has done is very helpful in gaining ideas.

Is it too much to ask for the list of modifications and pictures be hosted again, perhaps without the one picture that started this zoo?

I see that a lot of people are now turboing the m5 motors...The ones that I see are big hp.

Now I know this takes a serious pocket but what if you use lets say CP pistons.

How much would it run to build one of these for boost...lets say at the 20-30 psi range?

Rods
Head

Just a question?

Justin_FL wrote:I was thinking of turbocharging my M5 since the motor needs to be rebuilt sooner or later. Guess I made the mistake of not printing out the website that was hosted with the details... not being on a super duper budget, seeing what some one else has done is very helpful in gaining ideas.

Is it too much to ask for the list of modifications and pictures be hosted again, perhaps without the one picture that started this zoo?

Using Kens build for a template would not help much, as his was a "blank check" build.

I see that a lot of people are now turboing the m5 motors...The ones that I see are big hp.

Now I know this takes a serious pocket but what if you use lets say CP pistons.

How much would it run to build one of these for boost...lets say at the 20-30 psi range?

Rods
Head

Just a question?

Well, it doesn't have to take serious pocket, but to do it right, it will take some.

20-30psi on the S38 will yeild well in excess of 800+hp. If you take the middle range of 25psi your looking at the 950hp range. You looking at a "blank check" build to do that, or, if you have to ask how much it cost, you can't afford it.

You can turbo the S38b35 stock, but you'll be limited to ~7psi with the stock ECU for 375-400hp. You can lower compression with a rebuild, say $4k-$6k and push up to the 13-15psi range and 475hp. Most who do this limit the hp by using smaller turbos like RobL and Jasons ///M5s.

Of course you have to beef up the rest of the car with clutch, brakes etc.

RussC